Kimpton takes the edge off tax season

by Tom Johansmeyer on

‘Tis the season for taxation. We gather up our W-2s, sift through 1099s and try to figure out just how painful the experience is going to be for our wallets. Tax season isn’t the most pleasant of experiences for many, so Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants is hoping to take the sting out a little bit. With its “Sweet Tax Relief” deal, Kimpton will make sure tax time leaves you with an enjoyable taste in your mouth – for a change.

To start, participating Kimptons will pay your room tax for you, for stays during the entire month of April. And, your meal tax will be picked up when you throw down some grub at its restaurants. If you’ve ever taken a close look at your restauant receipt or hotel folio, you know just how substantial this savings can be. To sweeten the pot, so to speak, candy bars like “Payday,” “100 Grand” and “Sugar Daddy” will be provided, which you can munch on while waiting for your late checkout to come.

According to Niki Leondakis, chief operating officer of Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants, “Tax season can be a stressful time of year and this fun promotion is a great way for travelers to save a few dollars on the road and enjoy some sweet treats.”

Save money for the departure tax – International travel tip

by Gadling Staff on

Having never traveled to a foreign country, I didn’t realize I had to pay a departure tax when leaving St. Lucia. Check with your travel agent or with the airline before you leave, so you’ll know how much you’re required to pay in taxes and other fees not included with the price of your ticket.

Pro tip: learn the method of payment that’s allowed before reaching the airport. Most places will not accept credit cards.

Who pays for rescue efforts when people are lost? Who should?

by Jamie Rhein on

A few days ago, Kraig wrote about the three hikers lost on Mt. Hood. At the time of his post, one of the hikers had been found dead. The other two were still missing. Almost a week after they set out on their climb, they are still missing and most probably are dead. Because of this tragic situation, the question of who foots the bill for rescue efforts has come up once more.

Back in 2005, then Gadling blogger Erik Olsen wrestled with the question about who should pay–the lost hiker who hopefully is found–or tax payers? Olsen’s musings came about after a hiker hurt his ankle while hiking in Colorado. Several fire departments rescued the hiker after he spent a night on the mountain. The sticker price for the rescue was $5,000. In this case, the fire departments wanted the hiker to pay.

Usually, the people who are getting rescued don’t pay anything. But is that fair? Rescue attempts can be pricey. Consider this: From 1992 to 2007, the U.S. National Park Service spent $58 million on search and rescue efforts.

This recent Newsweek article echoes some of Erik’s points. As the article highlights, the hard economics question of who should pay for rescue attempts has as many facets to consider as it always has.

While one might say that people who take risks by heading up a mountain top or straying off a path should pay up once he or she is found, there are other factors to keep in mind.

  • One is a concern that people may avoid calling for help until it’s too late out of fear for what a rescue attempt might cost.
  • Some risks are unknown. A beautiful sunny day could go sour if the wind shifts, for example. Should people be punished when nature is at fault?
  • A large portion of rescue attempts are made by volunteers, therefore the cost is curtailed.
  • When fire departments and military units are part of rescue efforts, they often have hours to log towards rescues. A real live rescue helps them meet their quota.
  • Sometimes a rescue attempt may be launched even though the hiker is not in danger. A seasoned hiker may be holed up somewhere waiting for more favorable hiking conditions while a family member is frantic with worry.

With the knowledge that lost hikers are part of the outdoor scene, being financially proactive seems to be the best approach for handling costs before they occur. Colorado, for example, collects a small portion of the money from state recreational fees to put into a fund that is earmarked for search and rescue.

In Alaska, people who are mountain climbing up Mount McKinley pay $200 for the privilege.

Although planning for a tragic situation is never pleasant, it seems that in this case, planning ahead for the ” just in case” is sound. Otherwise, at the worst possible moment, people will be faced with the question, “How much is a life worth?

Another “blue ribbon” panel to fix the airline industry

by Tom Johansmeyer on

It’s been a tough month year decade for the airline industry. In the United States, it’s lost $58.5 billion and cut 158,000 jobs. There never seems to be an answer, and news of an industry in jeopardy has become routine. So, .

But, it will be different this time. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says it will not be “just another advisory committee.”

On his Department of Transportation blog, LaHood writes, “I am not commissioning some report to fill space on my bookshelf. This committee will make a difference.”

He continues:

“Look, without a financially strong aviation industry, we will be unable to compete in domestic and international commerce. We could also fall behind in addressing our own infrastructure needs. So we must begin this important conversation in order to ensure a viable, competitive U.S. aviation industry.”

But, he has his work cut out for him, as does the advisory committee. The estimated price tag to fix the most vexing problems the industry faces is $20 billion. And, many of the recommendations from the last two panels were never implemented.

A new air traffic control system, based on GPS technology, is at the top of the list, but it’s years away. It could save us $40 billion a year in lower fuel and labor costs, not to mention trimming a lot a time from the 740 million people who take to the skies. But, the $20 billion price tag is frightening, especially for airlines that are perpetually behind the financial 8-ball. The other possible wallet belongs to the taxpayer. Anyone want to pay more?

Oh, taxes could go up again if new environmental legislation is passed, so buckle up for more.

On the subject of taxes, the airline industry gripes that it gets hit worse than liquor and tobacco companies (well, except maybe rollers of loose cigarette tobacco). This gives them even fewer financial options to improve equipment and service. For airline shareholders, Jim May, top dog of the Air Transport Association, puts the lost value at around $24.5 billion. Yeah, I spelled it because there’d be a lot of zeroes otherwise. Local and state taxes have gone up, applying even more pressure. But, the other side of this is that taxes are a fact of life for any company, and the airlines should suck it up and move on. Let’s face it: with the U.S. economy in its current state, nobody’s getting tax cuts anytime soon.

Foreign money, the airlines say, would make it easier. Right now, foreign investors’ abilities to invest in U.S. airlines are limited because of national defense considerations. But, this is probably a dated risk, according to Carlos Bonilla, who advised former President Bush (the recent one) on transportation matters. The airlines would still be subject to U.S. regulation, regardless of who owns them.

Congress to investigate airline fees … but not for your benefit

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Congress is digging into all those new airline fees. Extra bags, special check-in situations … you name it. Before you start cheering on our lawmakers, though, you should know that they aren’t doing this from a sense of consumer advocacy. Frankly, Congress doesn’t give a damn how much you pay for air travel. But, it does care how you pay. Why? A cash-strapped government is wondering if it’s leaving money on the table.

When you look at your receipt, the line with “taxes” has never been lost on you, right? Well, the add-ons aren’t included in this number: Congress has a tax on airfare, not all the other stuff. So, for the airlines, this has been a tax-free revenue stream, one that’s been crucial to helping the already bruised airlines survive the current recession.

Yet, is it really just airfare in another form? That’s what Congress wants to know. Even if this is a different form of revenue, do you think it will be left untouched? Of course not! The government needs money, and there’s nothing stopping it from passing a new bill to tax the extra services. How much resistance would be raised?

Think about it.

The average person, even if traveling frequently for personal reasons, wouldn’t be hit too hard by the tax on the fees. If a $10 bag surcharge were taxed at 30% (just to pick a random and unreasonably ugly number) and a passenger flew weekly, he’d rack up $152 in taxes on the additional fees … and that’s assuming he needs to check the extra bag and did so every week. If faced with this or a higher income tax, how would you ask your congressman to vote?

Add it all up, and there’s some tax money to be had. The airline industry has pulled in more than $3 billion this year from the extra fees we all love to hate. If they were taxed at the same rate as fares — a much more reasonable 7.5% — $225 million in tax revenue would be generated. That’s not a trivial number.

The fees aren’t going to go away, and if all goes as it seems, a new tax will be here to stay, as well.